Likely Hazards of Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Alfalfa

In 2006 the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) determined that glyphosate tolerant alfalfa was no longer subject to regulation by government. In 2007, a court action ruled that the deregulation process was invalid and contrary to the national environmental protection act, as the APHIS environmental assessment (EA) was faulty. APHIS now intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International alfalfa lines designated events J101 and J163. Before that, it is seeking public comment on the scope of the pending EA (Docket No. APHIS­2007­0044: Environmental Impact Statement; Determination of Regulated Status of Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate).

This notice identifies potential issues and alternatives that will be addressed by the EIS and requests public comment to further delineate the scope of the issues and regulatory alternatives. Comments must be received on or before 6 February 2008.

The original faulty EA - USDA/APHIS Environmental Assessment Monsanto Company and Forage Genetics International Petition 04-110-01p for Determination of Non-regulated Status for Roundup Ready® Alfalfa Events J101 and J163 October 2004 - was judged inadequate by Charles Breyer on 13 February 2007.

Lawyers from the Center for Food Safety raised a number of questions particularly related to spread of the modified genes to organic and conventional alfalfa crops and on the development of glyphosate resistant genes. Judge Breyer concluded: "APHIS failed to answer these substantial questions, concluding instead that any environmental impact is insignificant because gene transmission is the problem of the organic and conventional farmers and weeds always develop resistance to herbicides. As such reasons are not "convincing" and do not demonstrate that the agency took a "hard look" at the potential environmental impacts of its deregulation decision, the judge ordered APHIS to prepare and environmental impact statement in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act as requested by the plaintiff. The judgement exposed the cavalier manner in which APHIS had put forward opinions based on little or no evidence, making claims such as, in the event of gene transmission, the impact is not significant because it is the organic and conventional farmers' responsibility to ensure that such contamination does not occur.

The GM alfalfa rested on a "no significant impact" decision based on this absurd conclusion in APHIS' original EA, which made no inquiry into whether those farmers who do not want to grow genetically engineered alfalfa can, in fact, protect their crops from contamination. It also reasoned that federal organic standards do not require the testing of inputs or products for genetically engineered genes and that the unintentional presence of the engineered genes will not "necessarily" constitute a violation of national organic standards [1]. Judge Breyer's order did not deal with the potential impact on the modified alfalfa on the health of humans and animals and APHIS opinion that the GM alfalfa was harmless to humans and to animals was accepted in the absence of any evidence that it was so.

The scope of the new EIS proposed by APHIS [2] for consultation include, for example, consideration of impacts on organic alfalfa production, weed resistance to glyphosate, gene flow from GM alfalfa seed production, economic impacts on organic farmers. Will increased glyphosate usage related to the GM crop affect soil and water quality? What about impacts of the glyphosate usage on threatened or endangered species, or the health and safety of human beings? What about the health and safety of human beings and livestock exposed to GM alfalfa, such as allergy and other immune effects? Can the adverse effects of using GM alfalfa be mitigated? What are the consequences of mitigation on the coexistence of organic and conventional alfalfa production and export? Are there other potential impacts?

All of the scope items listed by APHIS, and more are worth fully investigating. We must request the EIS to address a fuller range of topics than is required in the court order, and discussion should be open to findings and reports completed after the defective EA was completed in 2004.

One aspect requiring fuller comment is the mindset of those preparing the EIS. As pointed out in an earlier comment submitted on the original EA of 2004 [3], there was an apparent bias toward unsupported opinions rather than references to relevant empirical studies. It is imperative that the new EIS should be produced by a fresh group of APHIS staff members who had not been involved in the original EA, those new members should be committed towards full and unbiased reporting based on empirical evidence.

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.

This material, provided for educational and informational purposes, constitutes a "fair use" of any copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. Billing-xpress is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. To support our work, please send a tax-deductible donation to: Billing-xpress, 6771 South Silver Hill Dr., Finland, MN 55603Activist or Media Inquiries (218) 226-4164. Text JoinBilling-xpress to 97779 to join our mobile network.